In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : I would agree about the liability except for the CBA being "ratified" by both parties.. I am sure the players probably sign off on something as part of any contract that probably extents to the CBA having hierarchy over an individual contract as well, I mean how else can you explain the 24% pay cur/roll back from the last CBA.Posted by rolerhoky19

Kudos on the retro thinking, yet it does not exclude the fact the current CBA was ratified with both parties agreeing the current wording. If they agreed to rollback the existing contracts in the time before the current CBA then it was a matter of the player's association en mass agreeing to the rollback. I think the contracts of Savard, Hossa, Pronger, etc. are subject to interpretation of the current CBA wording. Reviewing contracts after being reviewed once is a contentious point. Legally a nightmare.

In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : Kudos on the retro thinking, yet it does not exclude the fact the current CBA was ratified with both parties agreeing the current wording. If they agreed to rollback the existing contracts in the time before the current CBA then it was a matter of the player's association en mass agreeing to the rollback. I think the contracts of Savard, Hossa, Pronger, etc. are subject to interpretation of the current CBA wording. Reviewing contracts after being reviewed once is a contentious point. Legally a nightmare. Posted by islamorada

Sorry, I messed that up, I mean, the players agreed to the 24% roll back as part of the current CBA. Similarly (i haven't looked) but if the CBA allows for review of contracts after being registered, I would think that would cover the league in regards to reviewing the current contracts. My back ground is clearly not law, but i would think if we both sign a contract that says you can review my contract after approving it, and if its decided it really is against the "spirit" of the cba you can nullify it that would be the case.. Plus since the contract calls for arbitration, (atleast in my line of work) once you agree to arbitration you forfiet your rights to go through a legal trial..

I see no reason the players would care really, hossa got his ring and his money, and could be a free agent all over again, he can cash in again with a short term deal till the next CBA kicks in..

I think there is only 1-2? years on the current CBA and you may see a move at that point to address these deals (even something that terminates them as the currently stand).

First this is the NHL-Union's fault not to get things straight under the collective agreement.

The flexibility teams to have to sign guys to 20 year deals is utterly ridiculous.

Then nhl and the union will have to get back at the table to iron out some "language" of their agreement. For example you can't drop a players salary more than 25 percent the following year and then 25 percent the following year after that etc.

The nhl after the investigation will let teams have a "special window" timeframe of 30 days to renegotiate their contracts with these players

Pronger and Luongo will be kept , i doubt Hossa will be kept and Savard is as good as gone.

First this is the NHL-Union's fault not to get things straight under the collective agreement. The flexibility teams to have to sign guys to 20 year deals is utterly ridiculous. Then nhl and the union will have to get back at the table to iron out some "language" of their agreement. For example you can't drop a players salary more than 25 percent the following year and then 25 percent the following year after that etc. The nhl after the investigation will let teams have a "special window" timeframe of 30 days to renegotiate their contracts with these players Pronger and Luongo will be kept , i doubt Hossa will be kept and Savard is as good as gone. PC has received a get out jail free card with this investigation.Posted by yaz16

I would agree with that if thats the case, but not 30 days.. I mean you get 2 days to decide on an RFA. I am thinking it would be something similar.

In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : Sorry, I messed that up, I mean, the players agreed to the 24% roll back as part of the current CBA. Similarly (i haven't looked) but if the CBA allows for review of contracts after being registered, I would think that would cover the league in regards to reviewing the current contracts. My back ground is clearly not law, but i would think if we both sign a contract that says you can review my contract after approving it, and if its decided it really is against the "spirit" of the cba you can nullify it that would be the case.. Plus since the contract calls for arbitration, (atleast in my line of work) once you agree to arbitration you forfiet your rights to go through a legal trial.. I see no reason the players would care really, hossa got his ring and his money, and could be a free agent all over again, he can cash in again with a short term deal till the next CBA kicks in.. I think there is only 1-2? years on the current CBA and you may see a move at that point to address these deals (even something that terminates them as the currently stand).Posted by rolerhoky19

Don't know the law enough either, but I did serve in labor negotiations for nine years and three contracts, some of the agreed upon wording was later struck down by the State, resulting in termination of the salaries. My point is that the league did review these contracts once, by going over them once again may in fact violate the wording. Need to do some homework here though.

I don't think the clause says anything about being able to review existing contracts - only that contracts deemed to circumvent the cap will ... and that's as far as I can go from memory. Bloch is clearly extending this provision to existing contracts and suggesting that the league might use his decision on Kovalchuk as a precedent - the others being different in degree and not kind.

It would be a huge dog fight to kill those contracts, though. I think dc-bruins-fan would be right if it was an employer deciding to void the contracts - you can't unless you pay out - but the league isn't the employer. The league is the regulator.

In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : I dont think the term matters as much as the amount, i mean the league min will be above that in all likelihood before either player gets there, and as the bruins I think it would be tough to argue your legit intention is savards game will fall off so far by his 5,6, and 7 that he will be worth the league minimum, but still capable of playing to a point that you want to keep him locked in to your roster..Posted by rolerhoky19

I was wrong I thought Pronger and Luongo had started getting paid already such is not the case only Hossa. Pronger's contract started after Chris turned 35 this might help him.

I do think that Savard's two really low years looks are allot better than the end of Hossa's and Luongo's contract. PC doesn't have to justify paying Marc n playing him in his 40s just arguing the years of 37, 38 and 39 so he might be in a better position to argue than Bowman and Gillis but that's what lawyers position and argue let them have at it.

I don't think the clause says anything about being able to review existing contracts - only that contracts deemed to circumvent the cap will ... and that's as far as I can go from memory. Bloch is clearly extending this provision to existing contracts and suggesting that the league might use his decision on Kovalchuk as a precedent - the others being different in degree and not kind. It would be a huge dog fight to kill those contracts, though. I think dc-bruins-fan would be right if it was an employer deciding to void the contracts - you can't unless you pay out - but the league isn't the employer. The league is the regulator.Posted by Bookboy007

Just did a quick read of Article 26 of the CBA. Morning read would be more clear for myself.... I agree Book that the Kovy decision is in fact a precedent for the shape of the new CBA regarding circumvention and salaries/length of contracts. I could be shocked as I was with the Kovy decision though.

Under Section 26.10(b) of the CBA, the NHL can investigate a possible circumvention even if the player's contract has been "approved and registered". On top of that, Section 26.10(d) provides that there is no time limitation barring an investigation ("There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a Circumvention by the Commissioner).

"So in theory, the NHL could look to challenge previously approved contracts like those of Hossa, Zetterberg, Savard, Luongo and Franzen.

If it does, it won't be easy. At law, the principle of reliance is really important. If a player can show that he relied on the fact that the contract was approved and structured his life accordingly with the very reasonable expectation that the contract would be honored, then it may be tough for the NHL to go back and prevail."

I don't think the NHL will do anything about the Franzen, Zetterberg, and Hossa deals. Those guys have already played a year into their extensions. Luongo, Pronger, and Savard have yet to play a game under their respective contracts.

3) NHL Can Challenge Previous Contracts Under Section 26.10(b) of the CBA, the NHL can investigate a possible circumvention even if the player's contract has been " approved and registered ". On top of that, Section 26.10(d) provides that there is no time limitation barring an investigation ("There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a Circumvention by the Commissioner). "So in theory, the NHL could look to challenge previously approved contracts like those of Hossa, Zetterberg, Savard, Luongo and Franzen. If it does, it won't be easy. At law, the principle of reliance is really important. If a player can show that he relied on the fact that the contract was approved and structured his life accordingly with the very reasonable expectation that the contract would be honored, then it may be tough for the NHL to go back and prevail."Posted by SanDogBrewin

Thanks SanDog, I was looking for review or approval of contracts by the NHL. The problem I have is related to what you call "reliance". All contracts must be approved by the NHL including the above fore mentioned Hossa etc. If approved or reviewed the wording suggest that the player would in fact have a legitimized contract. Is the time consideration limited by the mere fact the contract has been reviewed or approved once. "Reliance" is correct word but it may include all contracts approved by the NHL even before the payday of the first contract.

At law, the principle of reliance is really important. If a player can show that he relied on the fact that the contract was approved and structured his life accordingly with the very reasonable expectation that the contract would be honored, then it may be tough for the NHL to go back and prevail."Posted by SanDogBrewin

You're right about reliance being the key here. But it's not just the players who have relied on these contracts -- the franchises have too. The franchises relied on the league's registration of these deals when they made decisions on who to keep/let go over the summer, develop marketing and sales strategies, evaluate trades, etc. The franchises will probably make the argument that the NHL's approval of these deals was a type of promise and significant factor in their subsequent actions/business decisions AND that the NHL knew this was going to be the case.

So, true, the NHL is not the employer, which means the player/franchise lawsuit would probably be something like tortious interference with contract or a request to have the courts enforce a promise that parties to the contract have been relying on and that the league knew this was going to be the case.

Conversely, the NHL will likely counter by arguing that the parties involved (franchises, players, NHLPA, staff) contracted around the default rules of contract law when they ratified the CBA and, as such, the NHL is fully entitled to void the contracts after they've been registered (regardless of reliance by the parties to the deal) and that this was a risk that the players and PA agreed to.

One thing that could pull the rug from underneath the players' argument is if there is a dispute resolution clause in the CBA (and I would be shocked if there wasn't) that says that all disputes arising under the CBA (as this one is) must be heard by an arbitrator (not a judge in a court of law) who will use specified rules (likely the CBA) to reach a conclusion. This is likely what happened with Kovalchuk. Since the CBA has a provision saying after-the-fact withdrawal of registration is fine, the arbitrator would have to side with the NHL.

A dispute resolution clause (favoring arbitration) would also preclude the players, teams, etc, from bringing a tortious interference with contract case, promissory estoppel claim, any negligence claims, basically anything in a US/Canadian courthouse under common contract law.

"Hi Donald Fehr? Hi, yeah, Bill Daly. Yeah, listen, this whole Kovalchuk thing? And us going back to revoke approval for previously approved contracts? Yeah, just so you know, I'm not the little Napoleon who used to run this thing, I'm not a used car dealer from Milwaukee, and I will f*&k you up if necessary. Okay, that's my bit, so, uh, have a nice day."

So, Lou Lamiorello basically designed the new CBA with Jacobs and others, and they are pretending they didn't know what they were doing? I am not buying that. This is what the Steelers, 49ers and in parituclar the 1997 and 1998 Broncos did and each were fined and lost draft picks because it was acknolwedged they tried to cheat. This is cheating. Circumventing the cap to be able to free up more cash to have free agent advanatages. Intent, deceit, advantage = Cheating This isn't a "whoops, we made a mistake".Posted by russgriswold

what is your basis for saying they tried to pretend they didnt know what they were doing. they read the CBA and looked at what they could do with it. the teams get held to the letter/dollar without any leeway. why would the teams voluntarily not do as much as they possibly could with it? if the NHL doesn't like it they need to make adjustments. further more they wrote the contracts and they got approved, where is the Deceit? the Kovy deal just poked the bear too much, thats all.

3) NHL Can Challenge Previous Contracts Under Section 26.10(b) of the CBA, the NHL can investigate a possible circumvention even if the player's contract has been " approved and registered ". On top of that, Section 26.10(d) provides that there is no time limitation barring an investigation ("There shall be no limitation of time barring the investigation of a Circumvention by the Commissioner). "So in theory, the NHL could look to challenge previously approved contracts like those of Hossa, Zetterberg, Savard, Luongo and Franzen. If it does, it won't be easy. At law, the principle of reliance is really important. If a player can show that he relied on the fact that the contract was approved and structured his life accordingly with the very reasonable expectation that the contract would be honored, then it may be tough for the NHL to go back and prevail."Posted by SanDogBrewin

SanDog, I reread the information you provided on the Kovy contract. The broad interpretation of 26.10 (b) (d) is the argument of the arbiter. Reliance is the key. The league and the NHLPA need to iron the definition of a contract that does not circumvent the CBA. Under that definition other contracts would be challenged no matter year what year of the contract. As stated by DC bruins the reliance issue is also for each of the teams who have entered into these "registered and approved contracts". What a mess to start the new season.

"Hi Donald Fehr? Hi, yeah, Bill Daly. Yeah, listen, this whole Kovalchuk thing? And us going back to revoke approval for previously approved contracts? Yeah, just so you know, I'm not the little Napoleon who used to run this thing, I'm not a used car dealer from Milwaukee, and I will f*&k you up if necessary. Okay, that's my bit, so, uh, have a nice day."Posted by Bookboy007

If the league has any balls it will void these contracts that clearly are designed to circumnavigate the cap. They CAN (thanks SanDog for posting the proof) do so and they should do so. It could get messy with challenges from the NHLPA but that shouldn't deter the league from doing the right thing.Posted by WalkTheLine

Couldn't disagree more. Why spark a messy legal battle (one with an unclear outcome...the worst kind of legal situation for any company) with the NHLPA so soon to the expiration of the current CBA? Also, this could create a little internal dissension among the league's board of governors, who are potentially on different sides of the aisle on this issue. Not the way you want to enter into CBA negotiations, especially after what happened last time, Fehr coming in, etc.

Seems like way too much downside risk for marginal benefit when you could let these deals go and eliminate the possibility of them occurring under the next CBA.

In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : Couldn't disagree more. Why spark a messy legal battle (one with an unclear outcome...the worst kind of legal situation for any company) with the NHLPA so soon to the expiration of the current CBA? Also, this could create a little internal dissension among the league's board of governors, who are potentially on different sides of the aisle on this issue. Not the way you want to enter into CBA negotiations, especially after what happened last time, Fehr coming in, etc. Seems like way too much downside risk for marginal benefit when you could let these deals go and eliminate the possibility of them occurring under the next CBA.Posted by dc-bruins-fan

dc - you may be right that the CBA is the way to resolve this going forward. I hadn't thought about that as it relates to the existing deals. But it may be possible that the league should void those deals now, let the battle ensue, and it may provide leverage when they begin negotiating the next CBA because you know it won't be resolved by then. But again, you are probably right that the downside risk, the mess and expense, outweigh the benefits. A battery of lawyers are probably currently discussing this with the league.

The other problem I have is what exactly do league officials mean when they say, "circumventing" the cap? The CBA, from what I have read, does not clearly define, much like other things in it, what that means. So how can it be properly enforced?

In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : The broad interpretation of 26.10 (b) (d) is the argument of the arbiter. Reliance is the key. The league and the NHLPA need to iron the definition of a contract that does not circumvent the CBA. Under that definition other contracts would be challenged no matter year what year of the contract. As stated by DC bruins the reliance issue is also for each of the teams who have entered into these "registered and approved contracts". What a mess to start the new season. Posted by islamorada

I still think the NHLPA will challenge because the CBA isn't clear. What is clear to me is the league is saying thye'll just do what they want, when they want ala Campbell's decision on Savard.

Rejecting a contract that has already started to be paid (Hossa's) ? Now that is circumvention!

In Response to Re: NHL is still investigating the contract of Savard, Hossa, Pronger and Luongo : I still think the NHLPA will challenge because the CBA isn't clear. What is clear to me is the league is saying thye'll just do what they want, when they want ala Campbell's decision on Savard. Rejecting a contract that has already started to be paid (Hossa's) ? Now that is circumvention!Posted by SanDogBrewin

I don't think its doing what they want, the language is unclear, and has to be, if you work in contracts you should know the more specific they get, the easier it becomes to find a loop hole, and the harder it would be to enforce that..

The fact is any contract that circumvents the cap is illegal, there does not need to be specific language to define that..